The Lord of the Rings Illustrated Hardcover – November 16, 2021

Amazing edition of the Lord of the Rings. Having read the LOTRs 10-12 years ago in small 3 mass market books you have to pin open and basically break to read them, I loved the story, hated the physical posture of reading. Fast forward having watched the movies all multiple times since then, it is so good to have a single volume copy to read on a table or in your lap. I have the Hobbit and the Silmarillion in the same series of printings. This one has thinner page than those do, which I like personally. The others feel like card-stock in comparison. All beautiful, but think it is worth noting. Just realities of physics lol. You have to hold it open in the first 100 pages or so, but then holds it self open. The illustrations are gorgeous, it isn’t like they are on every other page, but when they are there as you flip the page, they are insightful to see what Tolkien imagined them to be and truly add that needed visual spice to the book that I personally love. The book feels super premium with the smooth, slightly off-white color pages. Really pleasing and easy on the eyes to read. The red accents and page gilding also make the book come alive. The maps are not attached, which I find useful to situate it in an easier position to read as I am reading the book to see where the characters are on their respective quests throughout the volume. But this could be a problem if you forget to put it back in there when you are done reading. I might laminate them and hang them up, so there is that option. One of my better low $40 something purchases I have made. By the time I have read it thru this first time, I am ready to read it again :)

Two points to clarify about the most popular single-volume LOTR editions:1) The 1991 single-volume Alan Lee-illustrated edition is the "centenary" edition, commemorating Tolkien's 100th birthday (cf. "centenarian") . The "centennial" edition won't be published until 2054, which will be the 100th anniversary of the original publication of Lord of the Rings. This is a very well designed and well printed/bound edition, built to last and beatufil. Its only fault is the absence of fold-out maps (it has the black and white maps printed in sections, often seen in paperback editions).2) The reason for the broken type in the 1974 red leatherette "Collector's Edition" (and the occurrences of this number on the order of 1 or 2 characters on every 50th page or so) is more likely that the source text from which the negatives/plates were made and this edition printed was itself flawed and originally was some form of letterpress metal type, probably Monotype [a more 'modern' version of the old LinoType system], though depending on the date of that setting [up to mid-'60s, or even later] it may have been hand-composed. All metal type gets re-used, and becomes worn and some of it cracked/chipped over time. There were many books reprinted in this way through the early '80s (and a few publishers, such as Lindsay Books, of long out-of-print, mostly public-domain or 'gray rights' titles, still do this).The problem is unlikely to have been caused by faults in photo-typesetting strips or process-camera negs in 1973 or so (when this LOTR Collector's Edition was first printed) since that process was a fully mature, climax technology by then, and quality control was simply outstanding (this was due to that extinct beast, the unionized master-printer, especially at Houghton Mifflin, a publisher with a very large academic textbook list, and an industry reputation for quality production; just look at any ten trade hardbacks circa 1973 and earlier, and compare any element of quality to any ten current titles and it's clear the the technology and practice of printing and book binding peaked long ago, and nothing of newer technology, especially computer technology has served the interest of producing better made books, quite the opposite. 2007 tech only makes it faster and cheaper, nothing else.Remember also that it was the Allen & Unwin type-compositors who introduced virtually all the spelling and diction errors in both the 1st and 2nd editions, some of which have only finally been fixed in the 2004-05 50th Anniversary edition; and these were errors mostly such as 'dwarves' being "corrected" to 'dwarfs', 'elven' to 'elfin', and many others, primarily linguistic, along those lines; these would have been proper corrections with any author other than Tolkien, of course.)As for the notion that photo-reproduction is at all like printing a Word document on a laser printer, then scanning it back into a computer as a JPEG or GIF image file, and finally printing it again, that is a facile and plainly inaccurate comparison. In short, unless one starts with a bitmap or similar low quality computer 'font', prints on low-brightness (<70) recycled paper via a cheap ink-jet printer, scans using a 75-by-75 dpi setting via low-end scanning hardware and software, and repeats printing as above, the result will certainly be nothing so poor as Jeff Sun describes in his review. Photo-reproduction via PC and peripherals or via process-camera, strips, and offset printing, can easily and does commonly achieve excellent results, provided the equipment is of first quality and the operator is skilled.If anyone is obsessed enough to try this (as I clearly am), one fairly reliable way to tell whether a book is printed (at some stage) from some form of metal type is to use at least a 20x loupe and examine the vertical straight edges (particularly of upper N's, T's, L's, and E's) for irregularity. Metal type degrades in miniscule degrees after the first few hundred impressions, and will show this by cracking/splitting/chipping/warbling/bending and otherwise appearing NOT straight, sharp, and crisp (especially machine-set monotype/linotype which was all lead/tin, since it was melted down repeatedly; hand-set type has antimony and sometimes manganese in it, which makes it much harder to start and also casts more sharply; parts of letters break off but usually don't deform). It's a challenge to tell these apart, since photo-reproduction of letterpress can be hard to distinguish from original letterpress printing, if the latter is done by a highly skilled compositor and press operator. Some letterpress books show the impression of the type on the page, like a light embossing, from the force of the type striking the stock. Really good printing avoids this. So, if you have a book without this feature that does show feathering, breaks, waviness, etc. it may be either letterpress or photo-repro of LP, but if these traits are present it is almost certain metal type was used at some point in the life of the typesetting.Two caveats to even to this: feathering alone does not definitely mean deformed metal type. Feathering,, or little veins and stream-like projects away from the character is often caused by excessive inking and watery ink, and also by cheap papers that are unsized (meaning a starch like substance is added during the paper's manufacture to prevent feathering and bleedthrough; newsprint is unsized and you can see how feathering works buy lightly touching a fountain pen to a piece of it for a minute or so). The other caveat is that some computer fonts, especially some high end ones for MAC typesetting systems, have been photographically captured/reproduced from books printed mostly before 1800, and their designers often deliberately retain some of the source type's imperfections (which are due mostly to the more primitive metallurgy of that era) to achieve a particular design effect. You might be surprised how much theory and psychology underlies type-design and typography; there is a lot. Need a dissertation topic?This has become, I see now, a rant, and a really long one. First as a reader, then as a writer, then as apprentice in a letterpress print shop and bindery, I've always held the book as art-object or craft-work in very nearly as high esteem as the words contained within. I do think these issues are worth some ink, and I expect (or hope) that those interested in fine editions such as this so-called "Collector's " (Ugh! I so hate that term, it's like "deluxe" or "premier" and is mildly patronizing to the reader/buyer) edition of LOTR might also find at least some of the above ramble of interest and use. I do regard this red leatherette slipcased edition (ISBN 0-39-519395-8) as my favorite. It was this edition in which I first read LOTR, and though the Centenary hardcover and the HC 50th Anniversary editions (slipcased US and UK, different designs, both excellent) are on the whole and in most particulars better printed and bound, this edition is a nostalgia item for me. I also very much like the red binding, evocative as it is of the "Red Book of Westmarch," the foil-stamping on the spine, of the White Tree of Gondor, (which must be by either Pauline Baynes or by Tolkien himself) is a delight, and the two color printing, in spite of the ocassional bad character and slightly inconsistent inking, makes me feel like I'm reading an incunabulum. All of these speak across from the old world, though perhaps very long after the Third Age had concluded. I recommend it, highly and without reservation, even to a casual collector, especially now since it has recently gone out of print(ca. 2003-2005, around the time the slipcased, black bonded-leather, US 50th Anniversary edition [ISBN 0-618-51765-0] was published), and is very unlikely to be reissued. It (the Red) listed for $75, and Amazon last sold new copies for $47.50 last January. Now however, fine, used copies are nearing the original list price for the new, and new copies are nearing $100, and very hard to find. Buy one now, as soon as you find one available fine or better.

"The Lord of the Rings" is usually found in a single volume, or in three volumes: 1) "The Fellowship of the Ring", 2) "The Two Towers", and 3) "The Return of the King". My recommended reading age is 13+ years old, and I recommend reading "The Hobbit" first.When I was 15 years old in high school, I had to read "The Hobbit" for an English class. After reading that book, the teacher then let us borrow "The Lord of the Rings". Before I had started "The Return of the King", I had bought my own set of books. After I had read both books, I actually liked "The Hobbit" better than "The Lord of the Rings" at first - because the "The Hobbit" was brighter: a fun, grand adventure with more humor, whereas "The Lord of the Rings" was darker: a serious, grim life and death struggle for world survival. But by the time I was about 16, the historical significance of "The Lord of the Rings" began to appeal more to me. This is especially true if you read Appendices A and B of "The Lord of the Rings", and also read the "The Silmarillion". You begin to understand the rich history of Tolkien's Middle-Earth/ Beleriand creation. How the "The Silmarillion" brings out the significant events of the First and Second Ages, while the events in "The Lord of the Rings" are the culmination of the Third Age...each Age lasting thousands of years and ending with an immensely significant event.It was 25 years before I read "The Lord of the Rings" again, but Bilbo, Frodo, Sam, Gandalf, Aragorn, Galadriel, Legolas, Gimli, and many more had become household names! I had matured over those years, and my tastes changed. I was no longer a big fantasy/science-fiction reader: instead I was reading military history. I didn't expect to still love "The Lord of the Rings" the way I did as a teenager. I was happily wrong! This is still an exciting book, but I discovered what I really love...it is allegory-type stories. J. R. R. Tolkien himself has said that "The Lord of the Rings" is not allegory, because he hated allegory where he felt the author is dictating to the reader what is in their story...and that any other interpretation is incorrect. Tolkien wanted a reader to apply their own experiences and tastes to influence what they were reading. OK, but in real history one can still get allegory if their own experiences and tastes allow it. How many can learn about World War II and not apply the basic allegorical interpretation that good triumphs over evil? I've heard of, and can understand, several allegorical interpretations of "The Lord of the Rings". Frodo is like Jesus Christ: bearing the greatest of burdens for world salvation while being tempted to stray from his purpose, and the weight of the ring is similar to Christ's cross . The One Ring is like the atomic bomb: the ultimate weapon that corrupts whoever uses it, despite even good intentions, into a power-hungry creature of evil. There's an ecological message with the Ents trying to protect trees; and also the natural beauty of various places throughout Middle-Earth, while evil beings try to destroy it all (including the use of mechanical and polluting progress). I also get out of "The Lord of the Rings" a sense of a military mission: that Frodo & Sam are behind enemy lines on a mission that could end a war, and that Frodo realizes that getting back home or even staying alive doesn't matter - just completion of the mission...that's also sacrifice, perseverance, & camaraderie so prevalent in the military history I've read. There's prejudice with years of animosity between elves and dwarves, and how small, kind gestures can begin to erase all those blighted years...also, how people or races can put aside differences to solve a common problem. There's the recognition of the small, common people (citizen soldiers) that perform the greatest, toughest, and most necessary duty in any war. There's world peace in peril and that something needs to be done before it's too late. There's avoiding the easier way out, and facing one's problems and seeing them through to a conclusion despite severe hardships.I feel that Tolkien saw a little bit of himself in many of the good races of his world. The hobbits are like Tolkien because they love food, company, and talking about family. The ents are like Tolkien because of their unbounded love of trees. Gandalf the wizard is like Tolkien because of his exceptional intelligence and purpose of guiding others along the right path. Some men are like Tolkien because of their inner strength and gallantry, while other men show weakness by succumbing to evil...very realistic. But I believe he saw the beauty and enchantment of the elves in his wife, and why he loved both most dearly: that's why on their gravestone Luthien appears after his wife's name, and Beren appears after his name. The dwarves don't seem to resemble Tolkien, but they are present in much folklore, which is linked to his personal love of medieval languages."The Lord of the Rings" is a masterpiece in my opinion, and it's size (over 1000 pages in any printed format) is pretty daunting, but give it a shot! It'll be time well spent. And get ready for adventure, terror, excitement, love, treachery, devotion, monumental historic events, unforgettable battles, military strategy, exotic languages & culture, etc. See what you get out of the book! I think most people will enjoy it and/or be moved by it. And who knows, maybe it'll become your favorite book too!